WASHINGTON — Amending the 2257 federal record-keeping requirement, President Bush signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 before a White House crowd that included “America’s Most Wanted” host John Walsh, for whose son the bill is named.

While H.R. 4472 takes dramatic steps to protect children, such as creating a national sex offender registry, it also reshapes the 2257 playing field, according to Free Speech Coalition attorney Jeffrey Douglas, who said that the law mandates that so-called secondary producers — a group that likely includes adult webmasters — will be required to comply with 2257.

In addition to expanding liability to secondary producers, the proposed law also mandates record-keeping for films and images containing depictions of “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.”

According to Douglas, that means that exhibitions of mere nudity could fall under the 2257 record-keeping regime.

President Bush signed the bill July 27, the anniversary of the abduction of Adam Walsh, who was abducted from a Hollywood, Fla. Sears department store in 1981 at age 6. His severed head was later found, however the rest of his remains are still missing. His killer is still at large.

Chicken Little sez: I'm guessing this law will be challenged and its going to end up in the supreme court who will, at the very least, have to legally define "lascivious." Webster defines this adjective as "1. Given to or expressing lust; lecherous. 2. Exciting sexual desires; salacious. but we all know lawyers and politicians aren't much for allowing words to mean what they, uhh... mean. Also, please note this part of the bill has VERY LITTLE to do with children. Gee. How'd that happen? Congratulations to everyone here. You might now have to prove you're not a criminal without law enforcement needing probable cause. Also note the burden of proof has been shifted to you.

__________________I'm not an art critic but I think I know a good picture when I see one.

I personally am totally for protecting children, don't get me wrong. If you want to punish a piece of slime who has sexually abused a child feel free to lock me in a room with him for a couple of hours and I will guarantee he will never harm anyone again.

That being said, politicians like nothing more than to use children as political pawns for their agenda whether it be a conservative one or a liberal one. And once an agenda is pronounced as being "for the children" who can possibly be against it? That would mean being "against the children."